Obama is the best for America as he did great job for the betterment of American future in form of withdrawal of American army from Iraq and perhaps in Afghanistan.
While Republican are not sincere to American public because they wanted to engage the American in war as former President Bush has did to make the Muslim world worst enemy of America.
I think so, in next term Obama or Democrat will focus to maintain the economics stability as American economy is world' largest and developed economy, hence specific planning might be stand again the leading economy of the world.

Economic stability, as in high umemployment and $5 tillion of deficits? He has been an absolute disaster.
Also a fact - Bush signed the contract with Iraq to withdrawl before Obama took office. Facts matter.

Is the american dream being a public employee union worker who looks to receive a pension anywhere from 1 to 2 times their base salary as a worker? Fully paid medical care? A union wage far higher than private sector workers?

Is the american dream owning a home? [the housing bubble ought to preclude that as the american dream] The local and state governments want as many home owners that can be because of property taxes. Should that be the american dream? buy a home because the local and state governments need the property taxes to pay for all the union workers and their pensions?

I think Carl Karcher, founder of Carls Jr. restaurants [and owner of Hardee's] said it best. You can read it in any Carls Jr. restaurant on a plaque on the wall.

Carl Karcher started out with a hot dog cart, and with hard work, and little luck [as well as bank financing] parlayed his single hot dog cart, into a chain of fast food restaurants and grew wealthy from it. The plaque says ..."Living the American Dream"

Again, funny how the politicians use the tern "The American Dream" which if you ask 10 different people, they will give 10 different answers.

After watching a bunch of speeches myself, more from the Democratic side than the Republican one, one thing I can say is that just after one speech from the Republican side, you can clearly see the difference only from the tone both party uses. The Republican are extremly negative. It seems like their only goeal is not to help America, but to detrone Barack Obama. They also use different kind of emotions to pass their message, as angriness, hate, disrespectful and mean-spiritred. But on the other side of the medal, even after four years of difficulties and more or less "complications", the Democrats are very positive, forward-looking, affirming and hopeful. They are not stuck on the past, but on the future, and are using their mistakes to make it better. I am not living in the US, but as a soon to be citizen, I can myself see the difference since Mr. Obama is president. One of his slogan was "Yes WE can" and I believe that he is proving that if we're all united, we can make it better, and it will obviously take more than small four years to achieve the biggest goal ever, but it is in process.

I cannot affirm the veracity of Edward Klein or his comments in The Amateur yet modern political history may ultimately reveal his credibility or lack thereof. He begins on page eighty three of his book The Amateur by quoting historian Robert Dallek list of constants in the men who have most effectively fulfilled the presidential oath of office: 1) vision; 2) political pragmatism; 3) national consensus; 4) personal connection with the people; and 5) credibility. Dalleck seems to place the greatest emphasis on 4 and 5. (1)

Right or wrong Klein gives us his brief summary of one major presidential advisor. “She knows the buttons, the soft spots, the history, the contest”…thus spoke Michelle Obama about Valerie Jarrett. Klein perceives that she is the nexus if not ground zero in the Obama operation. As the Senior Adviser and Assistant to the president for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement Obama passes most important decisions past her. (2)

According to Klein it is difficult to follow Valerie Jarrett’s mystical hold on the Obamas. She seems to have come from one of America’s leading black families. Valerie attended Stanford University and The University of Michigan Law School. Valerie secured her first job as Richard M Daley’s corporation counsel in Chicago

According to Edward Klein, she has no experience of international experience and as he notes she offers no background in economics or fiscal policy and yet she is one of a few of the president’s most important advisers. One can read much more about Valerie Jarrett in Edward Klein’s book The Amateur recently published.

In November we will all participate in a Presidential election. In preparation for this event it will be expeditious for the presidential and vice presidential nominees to prepare themselves for the coming debates. It is true that none of the advisors or staff will be debating, yet is it important to examine the back ground and service of one who is rumored to be one of the most influential voices in this administration.

Who can forget the exploits and plight of Russian Czar Nicholas and the eventual controversy among the people over Rasputin decades ago? Both men in November are seeking our votes, is one of the nominees waiting the approval of a special person, who appears to be an intelligent advisor and loyal friend? What elements influence that counselor’s decision making? I will relegate this matter to the American electorate this election.

I think another important question is:
"Would you be better off today if Mitt Romney were President these last 4 years?"
I'm sure there are those who look at his policies and think we'd be better off. And they should vote for Romney if so. As for me, I see us with a liquidated GM and Chrysler and all the ancillary businesses dependent on their existence (meaning he would have to have created an extra million jobs just to be even), no new mileage standards, status quo on healthcare, increased spending on items in the defense budget (many not really for defense, just classified as such), lower tax revenues (which also contribute to the deficit), banks taking risks on the taxpayer's dollar, and no incentives for companies to create jobs in the U.S. as opposed to overseas.

Ever since last week I feel like a new person.
I absolutely despise anyone that is not Caucasian or Straight.
I don't think of women as real people anymore and I'm absolutely fascinated by guns.
Despite becoming rich overnight I feel incredibly greedy. So, much so that I now steal food from the hands of poor kids and feel really really good about it later, especially if they are poor immigrant kids.
And I'm able to lie and cheat with incredibly ease, almost as if I have no conscience whatsoever.
Even my skinhead doctor couldn't find anything wrong with me.
Is there a name to this incredibly welcome change?

What a partisan article, easy to see The Eonomists bends to the left ! DNC was farcical even if a large crowd of tame suckers applauded big time.
Onama was insignificant as ever . Public was rather impressed by emotional subjective acting like the wet-eye blurb of Michelle and the sincerely fake pitch of Bill Clionton, like the vacuum peddler he is. All a big show, nothing substantial .

An example of Obama creating jobs abroad or benefiting foreign companies with our money (borrowed from places like China) was this Cash for Clunkers program.

More than 80% of the new cars purchased were made by foreign companies, and OUR MONEY totaling $4,500 per new car was given to buyers of these foreign cars. Not a great deal for the Detroit three who wound up with less than 20% of new business from the program.

Besides the free money, all this program did was bring forward car sales by a couple of months. Car sales following the cessation of the program fell dramatically.

Another Obama program was pushing the banks into lowering the mortgages of those who were underwater in their houses. This is complete madness. The banks will make up this loss from others by increased fees and higher rates. There is no free lunch.

Another program under an executive order Obama issued recently (by-passing congress) was to allow states to come up with alternative rules to looking for work while receiving welfare and food stamps.

Clinton and Gingrich came up with this welfare reform in 1996 which required these work rules and no exceptions allowed. It resulted in a large number of former welfare recipients getting off welfare and getting a job.

They will be more of the same kind of lunatic programs if he is given another 4 years.

It was a shocking report and a further confirmation that this president's policies aren't working. After more than 3 years since the recession ended in June 2009 when negative growth turned positive.

There was a slight improvement in economic conditions at the end of last year and the beginning of 2012, but since then conditions have worsened with GDP growth declining from 3% in the 4Q 2011,to 2.0% in the 1Q 2012, to 1.7% in the 2Q 2012. The new jobs being added are also declining rapidly this year.

All this talk by dems about being handed a massive economic mess pales a little when you remember that the recession ended in June 2009. More than three years ago.

Bill Clinton is right, the old economy is not coming back. An economy where Government spent tax payer money funding programs to employ people. Projects like the Apollo Program, the Hydroelectric dam projects, the interstate highway system. All of which gave rise to the "middle class" comprised of small business owners who opened their small businesses because of those programs. The scientists, engineers, administrators, assemblers, factory workes, employed by those programs

The new economy, and the new middle class, are the unionized public employees who's wages and salaries, including pensions and medical care are paid for by taxes upon the people, just like Greece.

America that those in their middle to late 40s and older knew growing up, is no longer and we can thank those characters we elected to office to run our country for it. No longer is America the country others aspire to be, but is a country, like the Roman Empire, that is in decline. All because of political groups who want to mold and change America into what they thought it should be when they were young during the 1960s.

America lived as long as The Greatest Generation, and as those who were a part of The Greatest Generation, die off, so to is America dying off.

"....and a reality that has seen him look like a prisoner of congressional dysfunction and obstructionism."

That pretty well sums it up; congressional obstructionism, by the Republicans, to the detriment of us all. If you want government to work well, don't entrust it to those who think government is the problem. They will insure that it does not.

And don't entrust government to those who think government is the solution, either. Rent-seekers and autocrats-in-waiting all of them, always devising new Chicago rules for looting the productive to buy the votes of the handout gang.

A fair comment except for one thing:
Most Democrats don't feel that government is the solution, only that it is often part of the solution (big difference). You're the one who says they think that govt is the solution, not them. Do you have actual instances where any Democrats have said the words: "government is the solution"?
Many Republicans have publicly stated that "government is the problem". To be fair, I think that many say it just to make a point of too much govt, they do believe that some govt is necessary to solve problems. However, the fact remains that they have repeatedly made the statement that "government is the problem".

I consider my position is demonstrated well enough by the enormous expansions of government powers and bureaucracy - far beyond Constitutional powers - under the FDR, LBJ and Obama administrations. Citing crude slogans like 'government is the problem' is intended only to illuminate the results of actual governing policies, as I have demonstrated above.

It would be difficult to show that any Democrat administration since FDR has moved to restore the State's rights and individual rights usurped under those three Presidents.

And at the beginning of last week's Democrat convention someone did say, on the opening video, “Government’s the only thing we all belong to.” That's a complete reversal of the principle of a republic, in which the government belongs to the citizens, and not to an unaccountable class of bureaucrats or an autocrat.

I consider your argument to be an example of the problem with civil discourse today. You cut some slack to those you agree with, and cut no slack to those you disagree with.

I'll accept that to most who say 'government is the problem' , they are only illuminating an issue. But it seems rather disingenuous to then say that one person saying "government's the only thing we all belong to" as a huge reversal of the republic. More likely, that meant that we all have a responsibility to each other, that we are all in this together.

Likewise using words like "usurp" implies that somehow those who have a different view of government than you are somehow wrong and immoral. IMHO, Democratic administrations have absolutely restored individual rights, e.g. the rights of homosexuals to marry. (I know you will disagree with me and somehow try to say that isn't individual rights. You are absolutely entitled to disagree, but please understand that rational people can have differing views than you. It doesn't make us wrong or respect the Constitution any less than you).

Oh boy. You seem to be what I call a cafeteria Constitutionalist. You only believe in the parts you agree with.

The Constitution allows the Executive some powers and says that the Supreme Court decides whether it is Constitutional, not you. When you use words like arragation and usurp you imply that they don't respect the Constitution. And you lose people like me who are open to different ideas, but tune out extremists.

Every generation is filled with doomsayers like you who think the sky is falling because they don't agree with everything that is happening. Sometimes they are right, but 99% of the time they are wrong. I see no credible evidence that there is any more exercise of Executive power than has existed in our history.

Have any of mitts' five sons served in the armed services ?
A swiss bank account, thats used to prevent paying taxes to the United States.
Name just one effort, program, or idea that mitt stands for that indicates we should
have a goal other than making money for ourselves and the hell with those that can't
or won't

no one ,no presidebnts，before him or after him can fix current economic mess.the economy develops like building a skyscrapers,whic his built quickly but collapse in just few seconds.you are too naive,we should give him more 4 years because only he knows the situation we are in ,America is in.the jouney is hard,but we can work together to go through it . he never think its easy when he took the office,only you people dont understand the situation.

The U.S. is becoming the foremost nation on earth that promotes homosexuality, same sex marriages and aborting the unborn. The unborn have absolutely no Human Rights and it would be fitting that the United Nations would come to the defence of the unborn who cannot speak for themselves.
Obama kills millions of innocent unborn humans, unashamedly, while Assad has to bear the shame for killing terrorists and trouble makers. Something haywire there.
The substance of the speeches of the delegates and the facial expression of the listeners eliciting disgust, such as nodding, widening the eyes for the t.v. cameras. Others who got the point should expose the hypocrisy done in the name of "freedom of women" over their bodies. No so. Freedom ends where another's life begins.
Obama did not live up to the promise of “yes we can.” The economy is in a mess after 4 years. Who would want 4 more years of the same?!

You were kidding, right? Obama doesn't kill anyone. And you think Assad should be praised? Wow. Gotta love undereducation. Giving women the "freedom to choose" should be embraced in "the land of the free". If abortions were forced (like in China), then maybe you would have a case. Of course the unborn don't have human rights, they're fetuses. You think it'd be better to go back to the days of coathanger abortions? Because that's what would happen if legal abortions were outlawed.

Foetuses or fetus is a buzz word for a unborn living human being. That word is designed to abolish the guilt of having murdered a human being. Life begins at Conception. You have fallen into the deception trap.
It is believed that substances taken from the foetuses are presently in about 13 to 14 vaccination. Doctors won't tell you that unless you ask. In simple language 'abortion is murder.' The body parts and the blood of an aborted fetus ends up in the city's garbage dump.
Change your opinion and inform others.

That is the core of the fundamental issue behind the ongoing disagreement. Scientifically, morally, there is no single correct answer as to when life begins. It all depends on the criteria you choose. Conception and birth are two clear milestones along the path, and it depends on your criteria on where along the path is the right point. Living hope believe he/she has the single right definition, and won't accept that other definitions (even though they are the legal definitions) could be right.

When there is such wide disagreement, we do what most civil societies do, we don't accept either extreme, we find a point somewhere in the middle that covers the majority of criteria. And by definition, that means there will be lots of folks who think they are right who will be unhappy with it. And they are so convinced that they are morally right, they can't understand how a rational person can think otherwise.

And they refuse to accept the common/legal definitions of words like fetus and murder. Despite your objections Living hope, fetus does have a legal definition. You can call it a buzz word, but that IS the definition. And according to the law, abortion is NOT murder. I know you would like to change the laws, and you certainly are entitled to advocate for that, but until the law is changed, IMHO it is rather disingenuous to suggest a definition that contradicts the law.

Actually freedom of action for a mother of a fetus is not limited by the asserted freedom of that fetus: the right to life is not the right to extract life from another. Unless we posit a special category for the rights of beings dependent upon the existence of a another particular individual there is no argument for restricting the pregnant woman’s rights against the claims of the fetus. What supports that assumption besides sentiment? Perhaps one may say it’s the obligation of the strong to favor the rights of the weak. But the rebuttal is that there is no such obligation unless we have conveniently invented it for this particular purpose.
One is free to take lethal action in the case of self defense for example and the opponents rights give way to the attacked. If the context not of attack but of hospitality is considered, we all accept that hospitality is an option which can be morally exercised -or not- at any time. Can we really support the claim that ( as was attempted 35 years ago in the exhausting – if not exhaustive- abortion debates done im journals of moral philosophy) everyone has a universal right against being unjustly killed even the fetus? This would preclude us from arguing that the one-too-many-in-the-life-boat context justifies throwing an unlucky lottery loser overboard, a standard lesson in practical reasoning at law schools. It might be better to weaken the claim to an assertion about the everyone having a universal claim to be spared unjust killing.
It might be more honest and more clear to just posit that we want abortion to be done ( in the early term) only after the non-fetal individuals involved think out their interests. Its true they might claim to have done so whether or not it’s the case. So leaving it to their conscience is just as good a policy.

no one ,no presidebnts，before him or after him can fix current economic mess.the economy develops like building a skyscrapers,whic his built quickly but collapse in just few seconds.you are too naive,we should give him more 4 years because only he knows the situation we are in ,America is in.the jouney is hard,but we can work together to go through it . he never think its easy when he took the office,only you people dont understand the situation.

no one ,no presidebnts，before him or after him can fix current economic mess.the economy develops like building a skyscrapers,whic his built quickly but collapse in just few seconds.you are too naive,we should give him more 4 years because only he knows the situation we are in ,America is in.the jouney is hard,but we can work together to go through it . he never think its easy when he took the office,only you people dont understand the situation.

Sorry, I hate to disappoint you, but this is just normal in many European countries, and it has been for quite some time. So defining the US as "foremost" in those things, it's just not true. If anything, the US are disappointingly slow in these developments.

The fetus and the zygote are just that...not the rabid rights 'child'...'baby' scare tactics used to promote emotional reactions from the scientific ignoramuses!
In fact, the cells are parasitic! They feed off the HOST! It is for the women to choose not the mostly white male patriarchal legislators who can not nurture or carry a fetus !
'Abortion as murder' is rabid righty BS!

Let's see where the economy goes over the next three months. It's contracting, and Bernanke is going to have another QE. People working is at a 30 year low.
I foresee problems for Obama. Made the mistake of voting for him once. Not again.